September 24, 2009

... Mr. Kennedy’s widow, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, and his sons, Edward M. Kennedy Jr. and Representative Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island, had urged Mr. Patrick to appoint Mr. Kirk, who worked for Senator Kennedy in the 1970s, and later served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee....

Mr. Kirk, 71, is chairman of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation in Boston. Several friends and associates described him as low-key and laconic, a shrewd political strategist who could have run for office himself but decided he preferred a behind-the-scenes role.

In its motion, party leaders argue that it was unconstitutional for the governor to have put the new law into effect immediately.

I have no idea what the Mass constitution says, but you really shouldn’t be changing the rules and applying them immediately. It’s like changing the monopoly rules in the middle of the game because you are losing. Not to mention that everything would have been fine, if they hadn’t changed it last time around because they were mad there was a republican in the governor’s office.

Was the original law voted on by the people? Because if so, it doesn't seem appropriate to change it without a vote.

Another lawyer-drone and faithful Kennedy footman. Definitely a placeholder. I join others in wishing the guy had been an officer in previous military service.(I had a super enlisted guy named Kirk, briefly, who had decided to get out rather than go OCS. One reason he seriously cited was he didn't want the possible grief of being called Captain Kirk in the future - the military is loaded with Trekkies, or was back in the very early 90s.)

It would have been funny if Deval said he wanted that someone who best understood healthcare, who knew what had to be done to tweak the Massachusetts model and rally the Senate as Teddy planned to give the nation a good bipartisan plan modeled on it..And remembered who worked with Teddy nearly daily on the Mass insurance reforms..

And then appointed Mitt Romney.

Mitt. Who could then praise the Mass Legislature for "repealing their crazy law against Governors appointing replacement Senators.".

Is the measure legal and did the measure pass by a comfortable measure in the duly elected state legislature?

That's the question isn't it? Does the state legislature have the authority to overturn the present law (was it voted in by them, or the public?) and if it does have the authority, does that mean it is legal to do it for thsi instance, where the vacancy has already happened.

I think this is a foolish on the part of the Gov of Massachusetts. The beauty of Federalism, however, is that states are free to make foolish mistakes. We'll see who is elected. I hope it's not a Kennedy, but in a nation where the likes of a Santorum or a Kerry can be elected, well, is yet another Kennedy all that bad? It demonstrates how credulous the people of Massachusetts are but I think the nation will survive.

I'm not whining, I'm amused. The Massachusetts legislature clearly doesn't care much what their constitution does or does not say. They changed the rules a few years ago and now they're changing them back because they find it convenient. Fine for them. I find the baseness of politicians mockable. Fine for me.

So, to go to the point of my comment, which Kennedy family member DO you think Kirk is holding the seat for? Surely you don't believe he's the best candidate to replace the late Senator?